80 PTEEOPODID^. 



l"-55 ; fourth finger— metacarp. l"-4, 1st ph. 0"-8, 2ncl ph. 0"-85 ; 

 fifth finger— metacarp. 1""5, 1st ph. 0"-7, 2nd ph. 0"'75 ; tibia 0"-85, 

 foot 0"-6. 



Hab. Zanzibar. 



Type in the collection of the Paris Museum. 



In external form this Bat is a Cynopterus. In fact no zoologist 

 could during life say that it belonged to the genus Cynonycteris. 

 Remembering the presence of an additional upper molar in a spe- 

 cimen of Pteropus medius from Nipal {vide p. 51), I would at once 

 consider the additional teeth of no importance, and place this species 

 in the genus Cynopterus. But the antepenultimate molars are also 

 small, so that it seems that they are the rudimentary condition of 

 previously well-developed teeth. Is this form, then, an example of 

 a species of Cynonycteris passing into Cynopterus, or can it be a 

 hybrid? 



4. CYNOPTERUS. 



Cynopterus, F. Cuvier, Dents des Mammif. p. 39 (1825) ; Peters, 

 MS. Akad. Berl. 1867, p. 866 ; Gray, Catal. Mmikeys and Fruit- 

 eatinq Bats, 1870, p. 121 ; Dobson, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1873, 

 p. 200 ; Monogr. Asiat. Chiropt. 1876, p. 23. 



Pachysoma, Is. Oeoffroy, Diet. Class. Hist. Nat. p. 705 (1828). 



Muzzle much shorter than in Cynonycteris, and comparatively 

 thicker ; nostrils projecting, deeply emarginate between ; upper lip 

 with a narrow vertical groove in front boimded laterally by naked 

 prominences as in Pteropus ; index finger with a distinct claw ; 

 metacarpal bone of the middle finger longer than the index finger ; 

 wings from the sides of the hairy back and from the first toe ; tail 

 short, distinct (except in Megcerops). 



Dentition. Inc. | or |, c. [^^ pm. |^, m. ^1. 



General form of the teeth as in Cynonycteris, but less in number 

 than in that genus, the last upper and last two lower molars being 

 absent *. 



Range. The Oriental Region ; one species only found slightly 

 beyond the limits of this region, in Morty Island (Jilolo). 



This genus appears to be most closely allied to Pteropus, even 

 more so than Cynonycteris, which agrees with that genus in the 

 dental formula. The form of the nostrils and of the narrow groove 

 on the upper lip, bounded by naked, raised, prominent margins, are 

 quite similar to the same parts in Pteropus ; while in Cynonycteris 

 the groove on the upper lip is deep and wide, with slanting sides. 

 The absence of a tail in one of the species C. (Megcerops) ecaudatus, 

 gives further indication of its natural afiinities. 



* Tbe rudimentary condition of these teeth in the transitional form Cywmyc- 

 teris grandidicri shows that this is the correct view of the homologies of the 

 teeth in Cynopterus. 



